Buckman board updates MOU talks with Los Alamos, seeks October draft

The Buckman Direct Diversion Board heard a verbal update Sept. 4 on negotiations for a new memorandum of understanding with Los Alamos National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy oversight officials to formalize early-notification system (ENS) procedures and funding for Rio Grande sampling. The board was told the parties have held recent technical meetings with LANL subcontractors and DOE oversight staff and that staff hope to return with a proposed MOU for board consideration at the Oct. 2 meeting. Board chair Justin Green said the board wants the work finished promptly; board staff and negotiators described a multi-step process of technical meetings that has been slowed by equipment reliability and staffing changes. “[W]e are not quite there yet. But, we hope to be bringing you back a substantial matter in October,” Kyle (staff member) told the board, summarizing next steps. Peter Hahn of Glorieta Geoscience described a recent technical meeting with LANL subcontractors and said the meeting was “positive” and that a follow-up meeting will include the DOE oversight bureau and EMLA. Hahn said the technical meeting focused on refining what sampling and analyses are needed and how funding would be used. Board members and staff traced the delay to several factors: (1) the ENS gauge installed in 2021 can be inundated during high Rio Grande flows and needs refinement for reliable early notification; (2) staffing turnover at multiple agencies; and (3) a need to define the technical questions that sampling should answer before finalizing funding commitments. Negotiators framed two core MOU topics: (1) an ENS to notify plant operators about flows from LA Pueblo Canyon so operators can decide whether to suspend diversions, and (2) continued funding for Rio Grande water sampling. Kyle said past MOUs have funded sampling at just under $100,000 and that staff have sought a consumer‑price‑index adjustment to those funds. Board staff said the parties have discussed a five‑year term for the MOU but had not finalized that length. Brad Prada, the board’s facility manager who has participated in technical discussions, told the board that technical work should clarify operational questions such as the timing and duration of intake shutdowns at the Buckman intake. “That lag period is really important to understand,” Prada said, referring to how long operators should suspend diversions when the ENS signals canyon flows. The board received no formal MOU to vote on at the Sept. 4 meeting. Staff described the current posture as ongoing negotiations; Kyle said staff hope to present a recommended agreement at the board’s Oct. 2 meeting. Discussion only: staff and technical consultants described past work, recent technical meetings and outstanding questions. Direction: staff were instructed to continue negotiations and to return with a draft MOU for possible board action in October. Formal action: none on the MOU at this meeting.